Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 537 NOMINAL INDEX Innisai vs State of Tamilnadu & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522 Susheela Kawar v M Pettu Lakshmi: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 523 D Sudha v State: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 524 K.C.Selvam vs. Chairman, Mr.V.S.Venkatraman & others: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 525 S Balasubramanian v Union of India and Others, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 537
NOMINAL INDEX
Innisai vs State of Tamilnadu & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522
Susheela Kawar v M Pettu Lakshmi: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 523
D Sudha v State: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 524
K.C.Selvam vs. Chairman, Mr.V.S.Venkatraman & others: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 525
S Balasubramanian v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 526
Dr. R. Karpagam v The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 527
Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 528
S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 529
V Nagalingam v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 530
R.A. Jaikumar vs. Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 531
AG Perarivalan v The Regional Passport Office and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 532
Rama Ravikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 533
RD Sanathanakrishnan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 534
SP Ramesh Kumar v The Union of India And others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 535
R Anandha Ramakrishnan v The Assistant Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 536
Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S.Viji v Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 537
REPORT
Madras High Court Orders Release Of Cop Arrested Without Reasons Despite Complying With BNSS Notice
Case Title: Innisai vs State of Tamilnadu & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522
The Madras High Court has held that arresting and subsequently remanding an accused person without supplying him with the grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 522]
It further ruled that an arrest made without recording reasons, despite compliance with the notice of appearance under Section 35(3) BNSS renders the arrest illegal.
In doing so the court ordered the release of a cop who was arrested despite complying with Section 35(3) BNSS notice directing him to appear before the police authorities.
Case Title: Susheela Kawar v M Pettu Lakshmi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 523
The Madras High Court has held that parties in a suit are not entitled to return of court fee once the matter is settled after evidence is recorded. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 523]
“However, there is no doubt in my mind that a party is not entitled to any refund once evidence is recorded, if whatever little worth it may be,” the court observed.
Justice PB Balaji also noted that Section 69A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 needs to be relooked.
The court noted that the provision, as it stands now, entitled a party to refund the court fee the moment a matter is referred to alternate dispute resolution. However, the provision is silent on what happens to the court fee when the matter remains unsolved and the parties come back to court for trial.
Case Title: D Sudha v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 524
The Madras High Court, on Monday (November 2), granted anticipatory bail to D Sudha, DMK's Councillor of Ward No 95 of the Greater Chennai Corporation in a case relating to her offensive speech against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay in a public function. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 524]
Justice N Ramesh highlighted that political speech, however hostile it might be, was protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution and could be limited only by reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The court also observed that the office of the Chief Minister was not so fragile that a ward councillor's harsh speech could shake it. The court added that if the State resorts to arrest people for such words, it would be diminishing itself.
Case Title: K.C.Selvam vs. Chairman, Mr.V.S.Venkatraman & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 525
The Madras High Court pulled up a litigant for making a “mockery of the entire judicial system” and abusing the legal process after he paid a mere Rs 10 court fee for filing a suit seeking recovery of Rs 2.5 crore and then took over three years to pay the deficit court fee, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 on the party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 525]
Consequently, a Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumaar upheld the orders of the Single Judge refusing to condone delays of 1,161 days in representing the plaint and 1,181 days in paying the deficit court fee. It also held that the appellant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law and imposed costs of Rs 25,000 in each of the two appeals.
Case Title: S Balasubramanian v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 526
The Madras High Court has dismissed a challenge to Para 652(a) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I, which restricts sleeping berth timings between 10 pm and 6 am.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the restriction was imposed to ensure the convenience of the passengers. The court added that a solitary incident where passengers declined to extend the sleeping hour for a sick person does not necessitate invalidating the provision.
The court added that in such individual instances, the passengers could take the matter up with the Railway Protection Force or other officials in the station who could ensure that the safeguards are properly enforced.
Madras High Court Orders Closure, Demolition Of Illegal Resorts In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
Case Title: Dr. R. Karpagam v The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 527
The Madras High Court has ordered the closure of 87 illegal resorts in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve. The court added that steps should be taken for the demolition of the buildings.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumar noted that the establishments had not obtained planning permission/building approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) for establishing or operating the resorts. The court also noted an absence of permission from the Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA).
Temple Staff Paid Atrociously Low Salary: Madras High Court Asks HR & CE Department To Step In
Case Title: Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan v The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 528
The Madras High Court recently highlighted the low salary being paid to the temple staff in some temples of the State.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan noted that the salary drawn by some of the temple staff was lower than the lowest national floor level minimum wage of Rs 176 per day.
The court thus closed the plea by directing the HR & CE department to ensure that a living wage is paid to each staff working in public temples coming under its purview.
Mere Presence Of Another Person In Matrimonial Home Can't Prove Adultery: Madras High Court
Case Title: S vs K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 529
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the mere presence of another person in the matrimonial home, without reliable evidence of an adulterous relationship, cannot sustain a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 529]
The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that rejected his divorce petition and allowed his wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
Case Title: V Nagalingam v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 530
The Madras High Court recently held that an employee submitting a representation to his higher officials seeking permission to form an association would not amount to misconduct warranting departmental enquiry against the employee.
Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan observed that an employee has a right to submit a representation and it is for the administrative authorities to decide whether such request could be permitted or not. The court held that merely submitting a representation cannot be seen as misconduct or a basis for issuing a departmental charge memo.
Case Title: R.A. Jaikumar vs. Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 531
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G.R.Swaminathan and Justice M.D.Sumathi held that a prosecutor's independent decisions in conducting a criminal case do not amount to professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action by the Bar Council unless there is prima facie material indicating misconduct. The Bar Council cannot direct disciplinary action against such Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: AG Perarivalan v The Regional Passport Office and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 532
The Madras High Court has directed the Regional Passport Office to process the passport application of Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict AG Perarivalan.
Justice PT Asha noted that there was no criminal case pending against Perarivalan, and though he had been sentenced to death, he was later set at liberty by the Supreme Court. The court held that the authorities' reluctance to issue a passport solely on the ground that they were awaiting a report from police was not correct.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 533
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to remove a statue of EV Ramasamy, which was installed in Arulmigu Bramasirakandeeswarar Temple in Thanjavur District. The court has also asked that the statue be placed elsewhere, at a suitable place.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the statue was installed on the temple land without getting approval from the temple authorities or from the District Collector. The court thus ordered the District Collector to remove the statue and to place it in some other suitable place.
Case Title: RD Sanathanakrishnan v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 534
The Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a lawyer after a video clip of him engaging in an erotic act with a woman during the video proceedings of court went viral. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 534]
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the lawyer had not intentionally done the act in public. The court noted that the man had engaged in the act in his private office and it came to be seen on screen because the video conferencing link of the court remained connected in the background. The court remarked that an act done in private had been streamed due to ignorance of technology.
The court added that while it did not approve of the advocate's conduct, it had been dealt with in the contempt proceedings and through disciplinary proceedings by the professional body. The court added that the question before it was whether there were materials to make out a case as per the penal provisions charged against him, which the court answered in the negative.
Case Title: SP Ramesh Kumar v The Union of India And others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 535
The Madras High Court has dismissed petitions filed by four policemen accused in the death of Ajith Kumar, a temple guard in Manamadurai who allegedly died in custody earlier this year. The court has also directed the trial court to complete the trial within 9 months. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 535]
Justice P Murugan dismissed the petitions filed by the officers challenging the remand order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District. The petitions were filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police and two officers below the rank of Sub Inspector.
Case Title: R Anandha Ramakrishnan v The Assistant Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 536
The Madras High Court recently held that an accused in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a legal right, under Section 223 of the BNSS, to be furnished with all the documents relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 536]
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose and Justice Rajnish Pathiyil observed that the term “opportunity of being heard” specified in the first proviso of Section 223 of BNSS is for ensuring a fair trial, enabling an effective cross-examination, and preventing prejudice. The court held that withholding the documents would directly prejudice the case of the accused.
The court also added that unlike the usual criminal jurisprudence where the accused is presumed to be innocent, in PMLA proceedings the onus is shifted to the accused. In such a situation, the court said that the proviso under Section 223(2) BNSS should be given a purposive interpretation in favour of the accused.
Case Title: Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S.Viji v Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 537
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the instructions given by the Election Commission of India to a candidate at the time of election are in exercise of the Commission's statutory power under the Representation of People Act, and thus have a statutory force. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 537]
Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the instructions would thus be binding on the candidates. The court thus rejected the claim of TVK MLA Vijayakumar, who claimed that the ECI's instruction not to engage children during election campaign would not be an election offence.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Madras High Court Advocates Association v Union of India and Others
Case Number: WP43981 of 2026
The Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) has moved the Madras High Court against the Union Cabinet's 1965 decision by which it was decided that English would continue to be the common language in the Supreme Court and the High Courts until Hindi can replace it.
When the plea came up, the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was informed that a similar plea has been filed by the advocates' association in Madurai, but has not been listed yet. The court thus adjourned the plea to next week.
The Association has challenged the cabinet's decision arguing that it is against Article 348(2) of the Constitution, which expressly permits any other language used for any official purpose of the State. The Association submitted that by stating that regional language should not be introduced for the High Courts, the cabinet has made Article 348(2) a dead letter.
Case Title: D Sudha v State
Case Number: CRL OP No. 30986 of 2026
While granting anticipatory bail to a DMK Councillor for her derogatory speech against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, the Madras High Court also criticised the manner in which an economist scholar was recently arrested by the police over a social media post, which later turned out to be from a fake account.
Justice N Ramesh noted that the scholar, Kalaiyarasan, was picked up from his home at 5 am in the morning by policemen in plain cloth and was not even shown the complaint or a copy of the FIR based on which he was being arrested.
The court noted that though he was released on the same day and the Chief Minister had personally met him at the Secretariat following the incident, it does not answer the question of why plain-clothed police officers had arrived at his door early morning over a social media post and what action had been taken against those officers. The court also remarked that the Chief Minister's personal intervention is not a remedy.
Case Title: S Prabakaran v Dr M Prakash and Another
Case Number: SUB APPL NO 1334 OF 2025
The Madras High Court has once again flagged Universities in Tamil Nadu functioning without a Vice-Chancellor or a Syndicate.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted that if the State Government does not take steps to remedy the situation, it would affect higher education in the State, which includes students, teachers, staff, and retired employees.
The court noted that the universities were currently being run by a Convenor Committee appointed by the Government, headed by an IAS officer. The court remarked that the convenor committee could only be a temporary arrangement and it would be impossible for the committee to run and administer the University and colleges. The court also noted that the committees were continuing to run the Universities for more than 3 to 4 years, which would impact the functioning of the institutes.
Case Title: K Arumugathammal v The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: WP Crl 2927 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (November 3), has directed a team of three doctors to examine the undertrial prisoners who had fled from Theni prison and were later captured by the police.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B. Karthikeyan has directed the Deans of Government Medical College Salem and Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital to constitute a team of three doctors to visit the prison and examine the prisoners.
Case Title: H Syed Alim v The Director General of Police
Case Number: WP No 44784 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court asking the Director General of Police to issue a Police Standing Order or Circular prescribing uniform, lawful safeguards for police stations, cybercrime units and investigating officers while dealing with complaints relating to social media posts, political criticism, satire, and online speech.
The plea has been filed by an Advocate, H Syed Alim. He submitted that the plea has been filed in light of the increasing criminal complaints against citizens, journalists, political commentators, activists and social media users for criticism, satire, political opinion and democratic dissent expressed through online platforms.